Salish Sea Currents Climate 2020

Shoreline armoring
in puget sound gets new scrutiny
from the Army Corps of Engineers
BY CHRISTOPHER DUNAGAN
« BEFORE AFTER »
As the earth’s polar ice caps melt and sea levels rise, tides will continue to grow higher along Puget
Sound’s shoreline. That is expected to overrun many seawalls and bulkheads, shrinking the size
of beaches and destroying critical habitat for forage fish and other species. Now these structures,
known as shoreline armoring, could come under more extensive review and permitting as the
result of a revised shoreline policy announced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The revised policy, which resulted from a federal lawsuit, now requires
a Corps of Engineers permit for shoreline construction below the
high-tide line. The previous line of jurisdiction was lower on the beach,
effectively exempting most shoreline armoring from federal permits.
One of the key results of the policy change is to bring shoreline
armoring under the purview of the Endangered Species Act, said Amy
Carey of Sound Action, one of three environmental groups bringing the
lawsuit against the Corps.
“Until this change was made, the Corps was not looking at the impacts
to endangered salmon and orcas (from bulkheads),” Amy said, noting
that shoreline armoring can reduce spawning habitat for forage fish,
such as surf smelt and sand lance. Since salmon depend on forage
fish and orcas depend on salmon, shoreline armoring can affect a
significant part of the food web.
The effort to get the Corps to change its policy and better protect the
shoreline ecosystem has been a five- to six-year battle, Carey said. The
new policy better aligns the federal shoreline jurisdiction (under the
Above left: Shoreline along Cornet Bay in Island County before removal
of armoring.
Above right: Shoreline along Coronet Bay after removal of timber bulkhead,
regrading of bank, beach nourishment, backshore revegetation, and limited
anchoring of large wood in 2016.
Clean Water Act) with state and local jurisdictions (under the Shoreline
Management Act and the State Hydraulics Code).
The Endangered Species Act, which requires studies of biological
effects before a project is approved, is a powerful “tool” for
protecting the environment, Carey said, and it’s not directly available
to state agencies.
State agencies, including the Puget Sound Partnership, have made a
concerted effort to inform the public about damage from shoreline
armoring. State and local regulations have been updated to prevent
new bulkheads unless absolutely necessary to protect a structure from
shoreline erosion. Shoreline property owners have been encouraged
to replace old bulkheads with more natural methods of erosion control,
such as large logs and rocks anchored to the beach. This is called softshore
protection.
The Washington Legislature also has focused on the issue, last year
granting the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife increased
authority to oversee bulkhead construction for single-family homes.
And this year, lawmakers are considering a bill to require property
owners to analyze the feasibility of soft-shore protection before
replacing an aging bulkhead.
Previously, the Seattle District of the Corps, a federal agency, declined
to regulate construction — including shoreline armoring — proposed
in areas above a line defined by the average of the highest tide of each
day — known as “mean higher high water” since there are two high
tides each day. Most bulkheads are built above this line.
About one out of four high tides in the Seattle area exceed the mean
higher high water mark used by the Corps since 1977, according to
legal pleadings by the environmental groups. A more suitable line for
regulation would bring about 8,600 acres under Corps’ jurisdiction, the
plaintiffs argued.
By moving the line of jurisdiction higher on the beach, the Corps is
now expected to review most proposed bulkhead projects, along with
other shoreline structures. Docks, floats and other construction close
to the water have been subject to federal permitting since the Clean
Water Act went into effect in the 1970s.
The new line of jurisdiction is called simply the “high tide line,” defined
by changes in vegetation, deposits of shells and debris, along with
other evidence marking the highest tides under normal conditions.
That’s similar to state jurisdiction under the Hydraulics Code, which
goes up to “ordinary high water.”
The revised policy will bring federal jurisdiction and regulations to
structures built above the previous boundary line up to the observed
line formed by the highest tides. That will affect mostly bulkheads but
sometimes stairs to the beach and other structures.
Avoiding new shoreline armoring and removing existing armoring
wherever possible has been a longtime goal of the Puget Sound
Partnership, which was created in 2007 to coordinate recovery of
Puget Sound. A “Shoreline Armoring Implementation Strategy,”
adopted in 2018, spells out a series of programs and actions to reduce
shoreline impacts — including incentives, technical support, revised
regulations and increased enforcement of existing rules.
The issue of shoreline jurisdiction by the Army Corps of Engineers was
discussed by a multi-agency review team that developed the strategy,
noted Aimee Kinney, policy analyst for the Puget Sound Institute, who
worked on the strategy.
One question is whether the Seattle District has adequate staff to
handle the increased workload for permits, Kinney noted. The Seattle
District averaged just 17 permits per year for “bank stabilization” from
2012 to 2017, she said. Meanwhile, in 2015 and 2016, the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife issued an average of 165 permits per
year for new, replacement or repair of marine-shoreline armoring, she
said, pointing out that this is just a rough approximation of what the
Corps may be facing because of differences between the two agencies.
To streamline the process, the Corps could develop a “regional general
permit” to cover most conditions in Puget Sound, thus allowing for
rapid approval, provided that a project is built to specified standards,
including mitigation.
In the end, moving the line of jurisdiction a short way up the beach
might not seem like a big change, but it could have profound effects on
future shoreline-armoring projects and the survival of certain Puget
Sound species.
11
20 SALTWATER HABITAT
PUGET SOUND INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | TACOMA
salishseacurrents.org
21